The Vanderbilt Club Convention

Wherein a Specialist in Bridge Makes Some Valuable Suggestions About Playing the Game

R. J. LEIBENDERFER

IT is difficult to believe in these days -when contract is being played so generally that only two years ago the "Vanderbilt Count" was a novelty and the methods of scoring were still in a chaotic state. With the adoption of The Whist Club Code, however, in September, 1927, order came out of chaos and the "Vanderbilt Count" became the accepted law of the game. The author of this count, Harold S. Vanderbilt, is once again to the fore with a novelty, the so-called "Vanderbilt Club Convention", and, like the "Vanderbilt Count", it has struck the public fancy and has spread like wild fire. The public wants it and wants it right, so the writer has asked Mr. Vanderbilt to express his views authoritatively and this he has kindly consented to do in the following concise and very entertaining manner:

"The 'Club Convention' involves the introduction into the game of two 'artificial' as distinguished from 'regulation' bids. It removes the original one club bid and original one diamond overbid by partner from the realm of regulation bidding.

"TF you are playing the 'Club Convention' A and bid one club originally, it is equivalent to saying to your partner—

'Partner,

(a) I have at least three quick tricks: An ace or a king queen equals x quick trick; a guarded king (except by a queen) equals

a quick trick; an ace king in the same suit equals 2 quick tricks.

(b) You must not leave me in my one club. If you have not at least two quick tricks, you must bid one diamond. I, in turn, will do my utmost to take you out of your one diamond, but will not guarantee to do so. If you have at least two quick tricks in your hand, make a bid other than one diamond.

(c) My one club bid is made irrespective of my holding in clubs. I may have neither strength nor length in clubs. If I had wished to show the club suit originally, I would have bid two clubs, which, playing this convention, is equivalent to a one club 'regulation' bid.

(d) If the adversary on my left bids or doubles, the chain of the convention is broken, the 'regulation' system of bidding is thereby restored and your bid is optional, not forced. Consequently a one diamond bid from you following an adverse double won Id indicate strength in that suit or length with outside assistance.

(e) I may hold nothing more than I have shown by my one club bid or a strong suit with great length in it I wish to bid subsequently or I may have a hand which is so strong that if you can make a bid other than a diamond I can forthwith bid a slam, relying on your two quick tricks. Therefore, be sure your hand, when your overbid is other than one diamond, contains two quick tricks.

(f) I probably have not got a two suit hand. If I had, I would probably have opened with a one bid in the higher value of the two suits.

(g) I probably have a suit or a no trump bid at which, if you have nothing, I can play the hand at a one bid without incurring a material loss. This is a reasonable supposition.'

"Let us assume that playing this convention you have bid an original club, the opponent on your left has passed and your partner bids one diamond. By doing so he says to you:

'Partner,

(a) I have not two quick tricks in my hand.

(b) My one diamond bid is made irrespective of my holding in diamonds. I may have neither strength nor length in that suit; if I had length in diamonds with two quick tricks in my hand I would have bid two diamonds.

(c) As I have not two quick tricks, unless your hand is gigantic, it would be well to abandon all idea of bidding a slam.

(d) I may have a very bad hand, or one quick trick, or great length and moderate strength in one or two suits I would like to show you later on, or a hand that will materially assist one or more declarations you may be able to make.

(e) Take me out of my one diamond if you can possibly do so.'

"Conversely, if second in hand having passed you bid one heart over your partner's original club, it is equivalent to saying to your partner—

'Partner,

1. I have at least two quick tricks in my hand.

2. I have at least 4 hearts in my hand but neither one of my quick tricks is necessarily in that suit. However, my hearts, if only four in number, are headed by not lower cards than the queen ten.

3. I have not got a sufficiently strong hand, taken in conjunction with your club bid, to warrant more than an original one overbid, otherwise I would have bid more.'

"All this, no doubt, sounds very complicated at first sight, but if you follow the above rules and play the convention a few times, you will, I think, agree that it is extremely simple.

"WHY, perhaps you are thinking, is it advisable to introduce what might be termed 'artificial bidding' into the game, why complicate the game further by such an innovation, why not play the regulation system of bidding at contract?

"At Auction Bridge you do not have to bid the game to make it, and slam bidding and the large premiums that go with it are not part of the game or generally played. At Contract, the main bidding objective is to reach a game bid if it is in the cards and incidentally a slam contract provided you are reasonably sure of it. The regulation or ordinary system of bidding has proved to be inadequate in many hands at contract, and the need of a supplementary system is often felt and various ones have been devised by those who have played the game for any length of time. I am not for a moment suggesting that the regulation system should be abandoned. Far from it, I am still a great believer in its use in the large majority of hands. I merely advocate the Club Convention as a complementary system, as to my mind it rounds out and completes the regulation system.

"There are many hands at contract that it is almost impossible to bid adequately originally. The following hand is a typical example: No score. It is your original bid. You hold

Spades—Ace, Queen, 10 X X Hearts—Ace, Jack, X Diamonds—King, Queen, X X Clubs—X

If you bid one spade you may be left in, if you bid more you will perhaps shut out your partner's suit and play the hand in spades when the game contract is attainable in another suit and not in spades. If you bid one no trump you may reach a game no trump contract and be defeated by the club suit. You have a very good hand but any regulation bid you can make is objectionable for one or more reasons. Playing the club convention you bid one club. Assuming no bid on your left you should bid as follows over your partner's bid:

Partner's Overbid 1 no trump or 2 clubs

1 Diamond

2 Diamonds x Heart

1 Spade

Your Bid

3 no trump 1 Spade

5 Diamonds

4 Hearts 4 Spades

In this hand you cannot adequately express your strength or game making possibilities in one call. It is important to first find out what if anything your partner holds, and it is essential that you have another opportunity to bid. There are any number of hands of this character.

"IT was primarily for the purpose of enabling hands of this type and hands with slam prospects to be adequately bid that the club convention was devised.

"There is a corollary to the Club Convention which I believe to be one of its greatest advantages. It is simple enough. Never bid an original no trump unless you have a prospective guard in all four suits. Even with a singleton ace, bid a club. By a prospective guard I mean an ace or a king and one, or a queen and one, or knave, nine, X X. The queen and one against an opening lead in that suit is almost as good a guard as the queen and two. To require the queen and two would, I believe, be restricting the use of the original no trump bid too much.

"This corollary is not suggested to limit no trump bidding. I am a great advocate of playing hands at no trumps if practicable to do so, particularly when there is no score. It takes one less trick to go game (there is a vast difference between making 9 and 10 tricks in a hand), there can be no ruffing or cross ruffing, and no bad division of trumps. Because you bid a club holding a good hand with 3 suits guarded which you would ordinarily bid one no trump, it is no indication that if it is in the hand you will not eventually make a game no trump bid.

(Continued on page 116)

(Continued from page 98)

"The corollary is suggested for two reasons: (a) to limit unsuccessful no trump bidding. The great 'bugaboo' of all no trumpers has been that the bidding side is without a stop in a suit which the opponent with the opening lead has very properly not bid over the no trumper. His side promptly takes the first five or six tricks and the no trump bidders find at the end of the hand that they could have gone game in a major suit, (b) To simplify and enliven no trump raises. Assume you have bid an original one no trump at no score. Your partner holds a 6 card suit to the ace, king or the ace, queen, knave, or the king, queen and knave and no re-entry. Ordinarily he would be afraid of finding the missing honour in the adversaries' hands in which case his hand is perhaps worth but one or two tricks. There would be too much uncertainty about it to raise his partner's no trump call in no trumps and besides if his partner has the missing card he may be unguarded in some other suit. Rut playing the corollary all doubt is dispelled. You know the card which completes your suit must be in your partner's hand, and that he has prospective stop in any suit the adversaries may open; consequently 7 tricks early in the hand are almost assured. Three no trumps may be bid with confidence. Many players will maintain that it would be better, if the 6 card suit happens to be a major one, to bid it rather than assist the no trumper. I think the answer depends to some extent on the nature of the rest of the hand; with 2 singletons, or a doubleton and a missing suit, I would certainly agree with them; with a singleton, a doubleton and some slight strength in the 4 card suit I would be neutral, but with an ordinary distribution of the remaining cards I think the no trump bid is the best chance for game. If your partner is not strong enough to make 3 no trumps, you will probably not secure 4 in your major suit and, as you are not strong enough to bid over 3 in it, a raise from your partner is required to make game. If he is strong enough to raise you, you would probably have made game in 3 no trumps. With the same hand as above with a 5 instead of a 6 card suit you should bid 2 no trumps.

"One advantage of the corollary is that if you bid a suit over your partner's original one no trump declaration, you will find at least two of the suit, including an honour, in his hand.

"Another advantage is that you frequently get a good picture of your partner's hand, when the opportunity for a slam bid comes. From his no trump you are often able to place certain cards in each suit in his hand."

The foregoing summary of the "Vanderbilt Club" Convention is extremely well done and Mr. Vanderbilt is to be congratulated not only for his "discovery," but also for his keen analysis of its possibilities. Its strength lies in its forcing qualities, that is, its power to force partner to bid and show his quick trick values and thus keep the bidding open so that declarer may decide whether to try for game, slam or a partial score. In thousands of hands a player is practically assured of game in a suit bid or no trump but, unless he can get the information from his partner necessary for a proper choice, the game is often lost. The Vanderbilt Club Convention undoubtedly eliminates the guess work in many of such close hands. It also enables partners to get the exact information necessary for slam bidding and to that extent also is a winner. Partnership bidding in Contract, however, is still in the experimental stage and any suggestion or new convention must and should be carefully analyzed before being adopted as a standard proceeding. Mr. Vanderbilt, however, has given all Contract players something to think about and, judging by its wide-spread popularity, they are thinking pretty well of it. What more could any one ask?